Issued: August 22, 1980.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
At the Midwest Regional Conference on OCIC Centers held May 24-25, 1980, serious errors of racism and white chauvinism were exposed throughout the conference, both in white comrades’ response to criticisms of racism and in the election of the Regional Steering Committee (RSC). What follows is a brief summary of some of the racist errors made in response to criticisms of racism, errors made in relationship to the election of the Regional Steering Committee, and the National Steering Committee’s decision to overturn the election of the RSC.
A significant struggle against racism was waged in the region at the Midwest Regional Conference on OCIC Centers. Criticisms were raised of the minority presentation on federationism and OCIC Centers. Criticisms were also raised of a racist and anti-working class view presented in the majority presentation. The struggle which initially was focused on errors in the presentations began to uncover a whole range of racist errors in the practice of all the white comrades at the conference. This struggle was led, in the main, by national minority comrades. Since the particulars of* these criticisms will be detailed in the Regional Steering Committee’s summation of the conference, it will not be necessary to go into these errors at length. However, what is important to raise here is the response by white comrades to the criticisms of racism. Many of the responses were based on white chauvinism and laid the context for the serious errors made in the election of the RSC.
The conference struggle on OCIC Centers revealed sharply the following cone1usions:
1. Comrades had failed to seriously sum up federationist and racist errors made locally in their OCIC work. Generally, there was a failure to even recognize and make self-criticisms of racist errors that were being made.
2. White comrades refused to assume the leading role in the struggle against racism and did not in practice recognize that leadership in this struggle is their own particular tasks. White comrades refused to expose their own white chauvinism by giving examples of self-criticisms and therefore could not help other white comrades move forward politically. Therefore, the leading role in the struggle against racism was left to the national minority comrades with little exception. In sum, white comrades did not view the struggle against racism as their own struggle.
3. White comrades essentially viewed themselves as being non-racist. The prevailing attitude was that any racist errors that may have been identified were not significant because communists are above the class when it comes to racism! Therefore, white comrades felt that the criticisms from the national minority comrades were unjustified. Defensiveness resulted in feelings of being “attacked”.
The underlying white chauvinist attitude toward the criticisms was that white people were being viciously and unjustly “attacked” by “savages”. This white chauvinist response was the chief obstacle preventing the white comrades from responding politically as Marxist-Leninists to criticism. It was the national minority comrades who were attempting to move forward the party building process. Every attempt possible was used by white comrades to get out from under the criticisms - posturing, deflection of criticisms, and “hiding out” from criticisms.
Posturing: Posturing by some white comrades took the form of sharply criticizing others’ errors of racism and white chauvinism while not attempting to use their own self-criticisms in order to move forward other comrades. By posturing white comrades try to make themselves look good in front of national minority comrades. Many comrades postured when criticisms of the minority presentation were taken up. A number of comrades rushed to be first to criticize him and his view that racism was not a problem in the party building movement. Yet, instead of white comrades speaking to their own racist practice in their work to prove the point (ex. white comrades refusing to take the Principles of Unity to national minority comrades in the tendency and the reasons why), the comrade from Kansas City was used as a focus of criticism in order to posture in front of the national minority comrades and in order to keep the focus of criticism off of themselves. This is not to say that correct criticisms were not raised of the view that racism does not exist in the party building movement by comrades, but it was not approached from the standpoint of “yes, racism is holding back the party building movement, and this is how our racist errors have held us back in our city.” The correct approach would have meant that white comrades were seriously taking a look at their own racist practice and were ready to expose it to the movement and use it as a way to move other comrades forward. In the absence of this approach, white comrades who criticized the minority presentation for racism were using the comrade from Kansas City in order to posture and to promote themselves as “anti-racist fighters.”
Hiding Out: While some white comrades postured by immediately jumping to criticize others with empty slogans, others “hid out” from the criticisms by remaining silent and clamming up. This is the “white flight” response to criticisms of racism. Rather than taking a look at their own racist practice and coming forward in the discussion, many white comrades remained silent in the hopes that the criticisms would not come around to them. In fact, some fled the conference, like moving out of the neighborhood. Protection from exposure of their white chauvinism was more important to them than taking a Marxist-Leninist approach to criticism.
Deflection: Other comrades tried to deflect the struggle against racism by raising entirely different points. This happened when the criticisms were particularly sharp and intense and it made white comrades nervous and afraid to take it on themselves sharply they were afraid of being “attacked” themselves. To have taken it on sharply and concretely themselves would have meant exposing their own white chauvinist errors to the movement.
In all three of the above examples of how white comrades attempted to hide their white chauvinism, the attitude of all the white comrades was based on the white chauvinist view that they were under “attack” by emotional “savages”. Comrades did not view the criticisms of racism as in their own interests. It was this white chauvinist response to the criticisms of racism raised by the national minority comrades that led to the errors made in the election of the Regional Steering Committee.
First, the most advanced comrade who had demonstrated a leading role nationally and locally in the party building movement and in the OCIC who is a national minority comrade was not put forward for leadership by the Regional Coordinating Committee when it made its recommendation to the region, nor did his nomination at the conference receive support from the delegates. This comrade is chair of the Detroit Local Center, serves on the Planning Committee of the National Minority Marxist-Leninist Conference, and is a member of the national leadership of the auto fraction. His role in the party building movement and in the OCIC in particular has a history of demonstrated leadership. He played the leading role at the Midwest Conference on all the questions of the party building perspective of the OCIC and in the struggle against racism and white chauvinism.
Opposition to his nomination was based on racist paternalist arguments which covered over an overtly racist refusal to take leadership from advanced national minority comrades. Because it was stated that he was involved with a number of other national and local tasks, it was argued that he would be overloaded with tasks of the RSC. However, a number of the comrades nominated were also heavily involved in other areas and levels of political work, yet this was not considered for other nominees. The racist paternalism is in the assumption that it is alright to insist that white comrades cut back and prioritize other tasks in order to make the OC primary, but it is not alright for the leading comrade who is a national minority comrade.
This racist paternalism was a cover for white comrades’ refusal to see and accept leadership from the most advanced national minority comrades. It is racism that blinds comrades from seeing the advanced leadership of national minority comrades. They do not see it because they do not believe that they are capable of giving leadership to whites and to the all-sided tasks of the party building movement. It is overt racism to outrightly refuse to accept leadership from national minority comrades. Both manifestations of racism, to one degree or another were operating in failing to support Comrade Dave’s nomination.
While the leading comrade in the region did not receive support for nomination, three other national minority comrades and one white comrade did get elected. Of the three national minority comrades elected, two had only recently joined the OCIC. Because the regional conference’s agenda had been so severely compromised due to the white chauvinist response to the struggle against racist errors, the national minority comrades’ role was mainly on this question. Few of the delegates had any idea of the leadership abilities of at least two of the three national minority comrades who were also the new members to the OCIC. What was their history in the OCIC specifically? What grasp did they have of the OCIC party building perspective? How had their abilities to take up criticism and self-criticism been demonstrated? What would the newness of membership to the OCIC mean for these comrades and their ability to lead the OCIC regionally? None of these questions were raised. Yet, comrades without a second thought thrust them into leadership of the midwest region. Whether these comrades are, in fact, capable is not the question, but rather, on what basis did comrades elect a predominantly national minority leadership body for the region - a region which is predominantly white and is only just beginning to take up the struggle against racism?
White comrades elected the RSC solely on the basis of skin color - not on the basis of real leadership. White comrades voted for national minority comrades as tokens. The prevailing attitude was that one national minority comrade was just as good as another. If comrades were serious about electing real leadership, demonstrated leadership, they would have elected the leading comrade in the region, and would have discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the comrades elected. Instead, white comrades used the election of a predominantly national minority leadership to “prove” that they were not racist. It was a way out from under the criticisms of racism and a “badge” of their anti-racist good standing in the movement.
By electing a predominantly national minority leadership white comrades completely liquidated their own particular tasks of taking on the leading role in the struggle against racism. It was assumed that this was the particular task of national minority people. The struggle against racism was viewed as a problem for national minority people only – and not of the class and the party building movement as a whole. White comrades did not view the struggle against racism as in their own interests.
Why didn’t white comrades grasp the understanding of their particular tasks in the struggle against racism? It was due to their own white chauvinism. White comrades did not view the criticisms of racism politically, and therefore the criticisms were seen as “attacks”, unjust and unfair, when in fact they were sharp criticisms raised in an attempt to move comrades forward politically. If white comrades refuse to recognize how their own white chauvinism operates in practice, they will never be able to struggle with white workers and other white comrades on the question of racism, or any other question. If white comrades understand that their racism is no less than other white people in the class, that white people are all affected by the same white chauvinist ideology, then they can use their own understanding to effectively wage the struggle. But the view of the white comrades is that white workers are hopelessly racist and can’t be won over to party building. Their racism might prove to be an embarrassment! This attitude and view of oneself will continue to be an obstacle to building the advanced working class leadership in the movement. White workers will continue to view white communists as hypocrites and high sounding liberals and the practice will bear that out. White workers will not be won to party building if these attitudes persist. And white chauvinism will continue to keep out national minority people from the OCIC and out of leadership. As long as white communists do not take seriously criticisms of racism and as long as they refuse to assume a leading role in the struggle, the movement will continue to be dominated by the white petit bourgeois.
An error that all comrades at the conference made, white and national minority, was to undermine any political assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the white comrades as well. All white comrades were equally compromised. There was no recognition of differences among the white comrades in the struggle against racism. In spite of the resistance to criticisms, many white comrades had demonstrated a willingness to move forward. By failing to recognize the leading role that white communists must play in the struggle against racism, comrades’ strengths in this area were not politically assessed. The leading white comrades who were in the forefront of the struggle against racism at the conference bear particular responsibility. They postured the most by not raising criticisms in the context of their own errors, and instead were only trying to gather anti-racist credentials. This is not to say that their contributions were not felt, but the posturing served to demoralize the rest of the white comrades. They were essentially putting themselves on a pedestal removed from criticisms themselves. This created the impression that there are a few whites who are able to completely rid themselves of racism, as if magically, but that the rest of the white comrades are hopeless. This attitude played itself out in the election of the RSC by only one white comrade given any consideration for leadership. By not seeing the importance of whites taking up their particular tasks, the impression was given that white comrades in the main are not capable of this role. On the contrary, a number of white comrades demonstrated a genuine effort to move forward on the criticisms of racism and white chauvinism.
Neither was a correct political perspective applied to the one white comrade who was elected. Comrade Carmen was elected more on the basis of an endorsement of national minority comrades, rather than on the basis of her strengths and weaknesses in giving leadership to white comrades in the struggle against racism. The underlying attitude was, well, she must be ok if a Black comrade says so. On the other hand, white comrades felt “relieved” that there was at least one white person on the RSC due to their white chauvinist fear of the national minority comrades. In this way, there would be at least one “rational” person on the RSC.
In an objective sense, therefore, comrades were setting up the RSC for failure. All the ingredients were in motion. White comrades abdicated responsibility in the struggle against racism, refused to elect leadership on a political basis and instead elected leadership in the region only as tokens refusing to elect the most advanced leadership.
In relationship to the election of the RSC, national minority comrades made serious errors of nationalism. The prevailing view to one degree or another that the national minority comrades held of white comrades was as “pitiful white folks” who are unable or incapable of taking up the struggle against racism. The correct political understanding of the particular tasks of white comrades in the struggle against racism was liquidated. The burden of the responsibility was seen as the particular task of the national minority comrades. The attitude was “since the whites are dealing with this, we will have to do it.” Clearly, the white chauvinist response to the criticisms of racism encouraged the nationalism, however, these were significant errors in and of themselves.
National minority comrades’ acceptance of taking on the main responsibility in the struggle against racism in the OCIC downplayed their own responsibility in taking up the all-sided tasks of the party building movement. In other words, the national minority comrades accepted the tokenistic view that white comrades held and accepted the ghettoizing of their tasks in the OCIC. In the case of one Black comrade at the time of the election, she felt that Comrade Dave should not be elected to the RSC because he had more important things to do than to give leadership to the struggle against racism in the midwest region. This acceptance of the white chauvinist view of themselves and their tasks could have only been a prescription for failure as well. If white comrades continue to fail to take on the leadership in the struggle against racism and continue to leave it up to the national minority comrades, it will impede the all-sided leadership struggle of the national minority comrades because 1) it is white comrades who are best able to move other whites forward; 2) national minority comrades’ all-sided tasks will be held back by having to take on the leadership role in the struggle against racism; and 3) the prevailing tokenistic view of the national minority comrades will prevent whites from seeing and taking leadership in the party building movement from these comrades.
By accepting the tokenistic view of themselves, national minority comrades did not feel compelled to address in any serious fashion their own strengths and weaknesses in giving all-sided leadership to the OCIC. What reason would there be if skin color was the only basis for the election in the first place. To underscore the severity of the errors, when Comrades Ivy and Rollo were nominated, it was blanketly stated by national minority comrades that their leadership was self-evident at the conference and nothing more needed to be said. There was no delineation of what the tasks of leadership on the RSC should be, criteria, etc., no political evaluation demanded of the strengths and weaknesses in all areas of responsibility in the OCIC by white or national minority comrades.
Comrades PF and LR take particular responsibility in the errors in the election of the RSC. Both comrades serve on the national leadership of the OCIC. It was their particular responsibility to insure the correct political context for the election. Both comrades liquidated the particular tasks of white comrades in the election process, failed to make distinctions between white comrades in the struggle against racism, and allowed a tokenistic view of national minority comrades to prevail. For PF these errors were based on a racist posturing -posing as a “friend of Black people” and therefore failed to take up struggle for a correct political perspective in the election. For LR, a nationalist view of white comrades that they are not capable of moving forward in the struggle against racism led to abdicating political leadership in the election process as well.
The weight of the criticism bears heavily on PF due to her responsibility for insuring that the previous midwest regional committee provide the correct political perspective for the election. The RCC failed to address completely the question of white chauvinism and racism in its regional summation and in its discussion of criteria of a new leadership body, except in a superficial and abstract way. Clearly, the RCC did not grasp the political significance of the centrality of the struggle against racism and the responsibility white comrades had in leading the struggle. The RCC under the leadership of the NSC should have brought the correct political perspective on the election to the conference and should have delineated tasks of white comrades and national minority comrades particularly in this period. The RCC had the responsibility of clearly spelling out criteria and guidelines for evaluation of all comrades to be nominated. Instead, those recommended for nomination were left on their own without any guidance. In relationship to Comrade Brenda, the tokenism was profound. The RCC barely spoke to her strengths and weaknesses in the discussion of a proposed slate to the region. The RCC also did not recommend Comrade Dave who had been playing the leading role in the region. The view presented by Comrade PF when his name was raised in nomination at the RCC meeting was that he was too busy with other tasks. But the underlying view was, why should Comrade Dave have to be on the RSC if Comrade Brenda is going to be recommended - one’s just as good as another. It was the racism exhibited at this leadership meeting which was carried into the conference itself.
Based on the above summation of the errors made in relationship to the election of the Regional’ Steering Committee in the midwest, the National Steering Committee has overturned the election. A leadership body will be reconstituted at a meeting of the elected RSC together with the NSC person responsible for overseeing the work of the midwest region. Self criticisms of the white comrades who were members of the previous regional leadership body and of the one white member of the recently elected body, self-evaluations of strengths and weaknesses of national minority comrades nominated, and the decision on the newly constituted body will be circulated throughout the region. If members of the midwest region disagree with the decision, they may appeal to the National Steering Committee.
PF for the NSC
Final Draft 8/22/80